An official website of the United States government
Here's how you know
Official websites use .gov
A
.gov website belongs to an official
government organization in the United States.
Secure .gov websites use HTTPS
A lock (
) or https:// means you've safely
connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive
information only on official, secure websites.
As a library, NLM provides access to scientific literature. Inclusion in an NLM database does not imply endorsement of, or agreement with,
the contents by NLM or the National Institutes of Health.
Learn more:
PMC Disclaimer
|
PMC Copyright Notice
1Brandenburg University of Technology Cottbus-Senftenberg, Institute of Environmental Technology, Chair of Biotechnology of Water Treatment, 03046 Cottbus, Germany
1Brandenburg University of Technology Cottbus-Senftenberg, Institute of Environmental Technology, Chair of Biotechnology of Water Treatment, 03046 Cottbus, Germany
1Brandenburg University of Technology Cottbus-Senftenberg, Institute of Environmental Technology, Chair of Biotechnology of Water Treatment, 03046 Cottbus, Germany
1Brandenburg University of Technology Cottbus-Senftenberg, Institute of Environmental Technology, Chair of Biotechnology of Water Treatment, 03046 Cottbus, Germany
1Brandenburg University of Technology Cottbus-Senftenberg, Institute of Environmental Technology, Chair of Biotechnology of Water Treatment, 03046 Cottbus, Germany
1Brandenburg University of Technology Cottbus-Senftenberg, Institute of Environmental Technology, Chair of Biotechnology of Water Treatment, 03046 Cottbus, Germany
⁎
Corresponding author. Kuhnr@b-tu.de
Received 2017 Oct 19; Revised 2017 Nov 7; Accepted 2017 Nov 28; Collection date 2018 Feb.
The data presented in this article provide supporting information to the related research article “Comparison of ten different DNA extraction procedures with respect to their suitability for environmental samples” (Kuhn et al., 2017) [1]. In that article, we compared the suitability of ten selected DNA extraction methods based on DNA quality, purity, quantity and applicability to universal PCR. Here we provide the data on the specific DNA gel sample load, all unreported gel images of crude DNA and PCR results, and the complete cost analysis for all tested extraction procedures and in addition two commercial DNA extraction kits for soil and water.
Keywords: Cost analysis, DNA sample load, Gel electrophoresis
Specifications Table
Subject area
Biology
More specific subject area
Molecular Biology
Type of data
Tables, figures, equations
How data was acquired
Bio View Biostep transilluminator
Data format
Raw and analyzed
Experimental factors
Sample were preserved at −20 °C before DNA extraction
Experimental features
DNA extraction, universal PCR, DNA visualization, cost analysis
The data on the gel sample load are valuable to serve as indirect control for DNA quantification with fluorescence stain called PicoGreen.
•
This data provide additional gel images of crude DNA and PCR of the tested DNA extraction procedures.
•
The cost analysis of the DNA extraction procedures provided are valuable for further economical comparison.
1. Data
Table 1 presents the DNA sample load (in µL) necessary to visualize the crude DNA on the agarose gels. Different DNA loads were used in order to achieve comparable DNA concentrations ranging between 250 and 300 ng on the gel. Higher DNA loads were necessary for visualization on the agarose gels, especially for the crude DNA extracts from the Havel River sediment (procedure A, D, F, G, and H).
Table 1.
Sample load in µL on the agarose gel for visualization of crude DNA extracts.
The visual DNA quality control of crude DNA extracts and PCR of procedures B, C, D, E, H, I and J is presented in Fig. 1, Fig. 2, Fig. 3, Fig. 4. The results for crude DNA extracts and PCR amplification of procedure B and C (method according to [2]) were almost similar. In both cases, intensive fragmentation was found for crude DNA extracts of the activated sludge and no distinct genomic DNA band was visible (Fig. 1, D1 & E1). The crude DNA of the sediment and anaerobic digestion sludge indicated a good quality with lower content of impurities, while the quality of the crude DNA for the nitrifying sludge was lower. A higher content of impurities was visible on both gel images. Positive PCR amplification was only feasible for the anaerobic digestion sludge and showed a very good quality of the amplicon (Fig. 1, D2 & E2).
The results for the crude DNA extracts of procedure D and E (method according to [3], [4]) were also almost similar (Fig. 2, F1 & G1). For procedure D, no distinct genomic DNA band was visible on the agarose gel but instead, fragmentation and higher content of undefined impurities (Fig. 2, F1). The pattern for the nitrifying sludge, especially, indicated complete failure of the extraction procedure. The gel image of the crude DNA extraction for procedure E occurred almost similar to procedure D with one exception. The crude DNA extract of the activated sludge showed a slight distinct genomic DNA band, however, the background staining indicated the presence of impurities (Fig. 2, G1). Nevertheless, positive PCR amplification was obtained for the crude DNA extract from activated sludge for procedure E (Fig. 2, G2). Surprisingly, positive amplification of the nitrifying sludge was also obtained for both procedure D and E (Fig. 2, F2).
The results of the crude DNA extracts of procedure H and I (method according to [5], [6]) are presented in Fig. 3. All crude DNA extracts of procedure H indicate a slight distinct genomic DNA band and higher content of impurities through background staining (Fig. 3, H1). Positive PCR amplification was only obtained for the crude DNA extract of the anaerobic digestion sludge. PCR amplification of the crude DNA extracts of the activated sludge, Havel River sediment and nitrifying sludge failed (Fig. 3, H2). The quality of crude DNA extracts of procedure I was different between the four environmental samples (Fig. 3, I1). A distinct genomic DNA band without higher content of visible impurities was obtained for the activated sludge. The degree of increased impurities occurred slightly for the crude DNA extracts of the Havel River sediment, but a distinct genomic DNA band was still good visible on the gel image. The crude DNA extract of the anaerobic digestion sludge showed higher content of DNA fragmentation as well as possible impurities in the background of the gel. Besides a distinct DNA band higher background smearing was also visible for the crude DNA extract of the nitrifying sludge. Positive PCR amplification was only obtained for the crude DNA extract of the activated sludge (Fig. 3, I2).
The results of the crude DNA extracts of procedure J are presented in Fig. 4 (method according to [7]). The gel image indicated distinct genomic DNA bands with lower content of background smearing for the activated sludge, Havel River sediment and the nitrifying sludge. A higher degree of possible DNA fragmentation and/or background impurities were observed for the crude DNA extract of the anaerobic digestion sludge (Fig. 4, J1). Positive PCR amplification was obtained from the activated sludge, Havel River sediment and the nitrifying sludge, while the amplification for the anaerobic digestion sludge failed (Fig. 4, J2).
The cost analysis of the ten DNA extraction procedures and the two commercial DNA extraction kits is presented in detail in Table 2, Table 3, Table 4, Table 5, Table 6, Table 7, Table 8, Table 9, Table 10, Table 11, Table 12, Table 13. Our cost analysis is based on cost estimation. Therefore a cost range between lowest and highest prices is presented. We assumed that the real extraction price will be in this cost range. The presented results show that every extraction procedure has its specific cost range, which is mainly dependent on the extraction time and therefore also on the cost of the laboratory staff. We calculated the lowest laboratory staff cost ranging between 3.65 € and 5.10 € for procedure J (Table 11), and the highest ranging between 8.68 and 12.15 for procedure A (Table 2). We calculated the lowest cost for the chemicals needed ranging between 0.13 € to 0.31 € for procedure D (Table 5) and the highest cost ranging between 0.47 € to 0.96 € for procedure I (Table 10). The cost for the other consumables such as gloves, tubes and tips were almost similar for all analyzed extraction procedures and extraction kits.
Table 2.
Cost analysis for DNA extraction procedure A (according to Bourrain et al., 1999).
Consumables
Volumes
Units
Concentration
Volumes
/Weight
High costs
Low costs
Low cost
High cost
Amount
Unit
Fix cost (€)
Amount
Unit
Fix cost (€)
per prep (€)
per prep (€)
Gloves (any size)
1
pair
–
–
–
50
pair
8.20
50
pair
4.50
0.090
0.1640
Tubes
5
–
–
2.0
mL
500
pieces
11.9
1000
pieces
21.90
0.1095
0.1190
Tips
12
–
–
1000
µL
500
pieces
5.08
1000
pieces
7.70
0.0924
0.1218
Tips
1
–
–
200
µL
500
pieces
5.40
1000
pieces
8.19
0.0082
0.0108
Lysozyme buffer
0.75
mL
0.15 M NaCl
6,6
mg
500
g
15.84
1000
g
24.19
0.0002
0.0002
0.1 M Na2EDTA
27.9
mg
100
g
23.50
1000
g
59.70
0.0017
0.0066
15 mg mL-1 Lysozyme
15.0
mg
1.0
g
23.89
10
g
96.04
0.1441
0.3584
SDS solution
0.75
mL
0.1 M NaCl
4.4
mg
500
g
15.84
1000
g
24.19
0.0001
0.0001
0.5 M Tris–HCl
45.4
mg
500
g
93.40
1000
g
128.00
0.0058
0.0085
w/v 10% SDS
0.075
mg
100
g
16.56
1000
g
56.48
0.0000
0.0000
Tris–HCl saturated phenol
1.0
mL
0.1 M Tris–HCl
12.1
mg
500
g
93.40
1000
g
128.00
0.0016
0.0023
Phenol
1.0
g
100
g
18.00
1000
g
64.40
0.0644
0.1800
Phenol:Chloroform:Isoamyl
1.0
mL
25′ Phenol
0.5
g
100
g
18.00
1000
g
64.40
0.0322
0.0900
(25:24:1 v/v)
24′ Chloroform
0.48
mL
500
mL
50.62
2500
mL
100.66
0.0193
0.0486
1′ Isoamyl
0.02
mL
25
mL
13.92
1000
mL
108.00
0.0022
0.0111
Chloroform:Isoamyl
1.0
mL
24′ Chloroform
0.96
mL
500
mL
50.62
2500
mL
100.66
0.0387
0.0972
(24:1 v/v)
1′ Isoamyl
0.04
mL
25
mL
13.92
1000
mL
108.00
0.0043
2.2E-05
Isopropanol
1.0
mL
100%
2.0
mL
1000
mL
30.30
2500
mL
61.70
0.0494
6.1E-02
TE buffer
0.1
mL
10 mM Tris–HCl
0.12
mg
500
g
93.40
1000
g
128.00
1.6E-05
2.3E-05
1 mM EDTA
0.03
mg
100
g
34.08
1000
g
245.23
7.2E-06
1.0E-05
RNaseA treatment
5.0
µL
0.2 µg µL-1
1.0
µg
250
mg
94.40
1000
mg
292.00
0.0003
3.8E-04
Extracted samples
12
–
–
–
–
–
–
Extraction time
250
min
–
–
–
–
–
–
Lab staff (per hour)
–
35.00
–
25.00
–
–
Lab staff (€/extraction)
8.68
12.15
Chemicals (€/extraction)
0.36
0.86
Gloves, tubes, tips (€/extraction)
0.30
0.42
Final price per extraction including extraction time, lab staff and all consumables (€)
The sample preservation, DNA extraction, PCR performance and gel electrophoresis were described elsewhere [1]. For the cost analysis, a cost range was estimated ranging between minimum and maximum prices for all needed consumables. The number of required tubes and tips per extraction was counted. In all equations that follow, an index was included identifying low or high cost calculations, respectively. For clarification, the letter x represents all low cost calculations and the letter y represents all high cost calculations. The individual cost per chemical needed for every DNA extraction was calculated either with Eqs. (1) or (2), where mextraction is the chemical weight required for a single DNA extraction and mtotal,fix cost is the total weight corresponding to the fix cost. The individual cost for additional consumables such as gloves, tubes and/or tips was calculated either with Eqs. (3) or (4).
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
The cost for the lab staff was calculated either with Eqs. (5) or (6). The calculation is based on a total of 12 extractions per staff and the individual extraction time of the tested extraction procedures.
(5)
(6)
The sum of total costs of chemicals was calculated either with Eqs. (7) or (8). The total costs of all additional consumables needed per extraction was calculated either with Eqs. (9) or (10). The final price per preparation was then calculated either with Eqs. (11) or (12) considering the cost for the lab staff, for all chemicals and additional consumables needed.
1.Kuhn R., Böllmann J., Krahl K., Bryant I.M., Martienssen M. Comparison of ten different DNA extraction procedures with respect to their suitability for environmental samples. J. Microbiol. Methods. 2017;143:78–86. doi: 10.1016/j.mimet.2017.10.007. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
2.Gabor M.E., de Vries E.J., Janssen D.B. Efficient recovery of environmental DNA for expression cloning by indirect extraction methods. FEMS Microbiol. Ecol. 2003;44:153–163. doi: 10.1016/S0168-6496(02)00462-2. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
3.Shan G., Jin W., Lam E.K., Xing X. Purification of total DNA extracted from activated sludge. J. Environ. Sci. 2008;20:80–87. doi: 10.1016/s1001-0742(08)60012-1. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
4.Orsini M., Romano-Spica V. A microwave-based method for nucleic acid isolation from environmental samples. Lett. Appl. Microbiol. 2001;33:17–20. doi: 10.1046/j.1472-765x.2001.00938.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
5.Tabatabaei M., Zakaria M.R., Rahim R.A., Abdullah N., Wright D.G., Shirai Y., Shamsara M., Sakai K., Hassan M.A. Comparative study of methods for extraction and purification of environmental DNA from high-strength wastewater sludge. Afr. J. Biotechnol. 2010;9:4926–4937. [Google Scholar]
6.Tresse O., Lorrain M.J., Roh D. Population dynamics of free-floating and attached bacteria in a styrene-degrading biotrickling filter analyzed by denaturating gradient gel electrophoresis. Appl. Microbiol. Biot. 2002;59:585–590. doi: 10.1007/s00253-002-1039-z. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
7.Wilson K. Preparation of genomic DNA from bacteria. Curr. Proced. Mol. Biol. 2001 doi: 10.1002/0471142727.mb0204s56. 00:I:2.4:2.4.1–2.4.5. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Associated Data
This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.